Judge Timothy S. Black engages in judicial tyranny in “same sex” marriage case!

[johnwk]

.

In the case James Obergefell v Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D, Judge Timothy S. Black wrote:


V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 53) is hereby GRANTED as applied to these Plaintiffs. Specifically:

1. The Court finds and declares that Article 15, Section 11, of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code Section 3101.01(C), violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage recognized and accepted as legal in Ohio, are denied their fundamental right to marriage recognition without due process of law; and are denied their fundamental right to equal protection of the laws when Ohio does recognize comparable heterosexual marriages from other jurisdictions, even if obtained to circumvent Ohio law.


Of course, the above assertion concerning the 14th Amendment is absolutely without foundation, is not substantiated in the written opinion, and is nothing more than the court using its authority to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted. The court has indeed engaged in judicial tyranny!


Let us look at the facts. Now what exactly does the 14th Amendment declare?


”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This wording forbids every State from abridging the ”privileges or immunities” which it has adopted under law to “citizens of the United States”. Note that it does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"!


The amendment then continues with:


3. … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States”. It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws.


This section of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. It does not require one State to recognize and enforce another State’s laws, and especially not its licensing laws, within its jurisdiction as fraudulently asserted by Judge Timothy S. Black. Nor are residents within a particular state denied due process of law if that State refuses to recognize the licensing laws of another State.


The fact is, the wording of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear as referenced above and it is in harmony with the expressed intentions and beliefs which the 39th Congress was attempting to accomplish with the first Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment which was to incorporate the legislative intent of the first Civil Rights into our Constitution. For example, one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment expressed the legislative intent of the 39th Congress as follows:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)


The bottom line is, Judge Timothy S. Black has engaged in judicial tyranny, has violated his oath to support and defend our written Constitution and its documented “legislative intent”, and for this he deserved to be removed from office and then punished for his willful attempt to circumvent our written Constitution.


JWK



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

[daniel1234567]

The real goal behind same sex marriage is simple, devalue the sacredness of the man and woman, bond, then people stop having children naturally. Eventually the scientific dictatorship can control all human procreation aka Adolf Huxley Brave New World

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

[johnwk]

.


State Representative John Becker has asked Congressman Brad Wenstrup to initiate impeachment proceedings against Federal Judge Timothy S. Black.

SEE: Clermont lawmaker: Impeach judge for recognizing gay marriage (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/20/clemont-lawmaker-impeach-gay-rights-judge/)


“I am writing you today to express my concerns about the federal government’s ever growing propensity to violate state sovereignty,” Becker said. “Although this has been a trend since the early 19th century, it has accelerated exponentially in recent decades.”

Federal judges are appointed for life. The only way to remove a federal judge is for the House of Representatives to impeach them or the Senate to vote to remove them from office."


JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[dillo]

and this is why republicans lose elections that should be landslides. Let the gays marry, its not going to make them any more gay. If there is a church that will do it, who are you to tell the church what it can and can't do. If the world was severely underpopulated than you might have a case, but its not....its the opposite. The whole sanctity of marriage went out the window when the divorce rate hit 50%.

If they aren't hurting anyone, what justification can you possibly use to deny them the ability to get married. Thats statism.

[puppetmaster]

and this is why republicans lose elections that should be landslides. Let the gays marry, its not going to make them any more gay. If there is a church that will do it, who are you to tell the church what it can and can't do. If the world was severely underpopulated than you might have a case, but its not....its the opposite. The whole sanctity of marriage went out the window when the divorce rate hit 50%.

If they aren't hurting anyone, what justification can you possibly use to deny them the ability to get married. Thats statism.

Having to get permission from the state for any private contract (marriage) is statism.

For the record I am no fan of the ghey lifestyle but there are many lifestyles I dont agree with but successfully ignore.

[ClydeCoulter]

and this is why republicans lose elections that should be landslides. Let the gays marry, its not going to make them any more gay. If there is a church that will do it, who are you to tell the church what it can and can't do. If the world was severely underpopulated than you might have a case, but its not....its the opposite. The whole sanctity of marriage went out the window when the divorce rate hit 50%.

If they aren't hurting anyone, what justification can you possibly use to deny them the ability to get married. Thats statism.

The topic of the thread is not whether gays should be allowed to be married, but whether the federal government can force one state to recognize/enforce the license of another state. That's problematic no matter what the subject matter is.

edit: And very often, controversial topics such as this is what is used to set precedent, because of the emotional response to the subject rather than the legality/constitutionality of the ruling.

[phill4paul]

edit: And very often, controversial topics such as this is what is used to set precedent, because of the emotional response to the subject rather than the legality/constitutionality of the ruling.

Want an emotional response? File a suit over a firearms license (permit) on an 'assault weapon" obtained easily in one state and then move to California.

[ghengis86]

Want an emotional response? File a suit over a firearms license (permit) on an 'assault weapon" obtained easily in one state and then move to California.

Bingo! That was my first thought. If they are going to play this game, use this shitheads logic against the state.

[Sonny Tufts]

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. It does not require one State to recognize and enforce another State’s laws, and especially not its licensing laws, within its jurisdiction as fraudulently asserted by Judge Timothy S. Black.

You misunderstand the issue. The EP Clause prohibits a State from discriminating with no rational basis when recognizing out-of-state marriages. If Ohio recognizes a out-of-state heterosexual marriage (which it does), it cannot refuse to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage, any more than it could refuse to recognize an out-of-state interracial marriage.

[johnwk]

You misunderstand the issue. The EP Clause prohibits a State from discriminating with no rational basis when recognizing out-of-state marriages.


Did you learn that "rational basis" crap in law school?




One of the Supreme Court‘s “invented tools” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution are various “tests” the court has arbitrarily created. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s scrutiny that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s approval. Of course, this “test” allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a subjective question having nothing to do with a law’s constitutionality.

Whether rational or not, a legislative act which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional, even if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! In fact, to do so usurps legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers created by our federal Constitution.

For example, imaging for a moment that black males were being denied employment as prison guards by state law based upon race and the Court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent to provide protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment to Blacks because the State government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring on the basis of race. I believe most freedom loving Americans would find the Court’s action not only revolting but in defiance of the very reason for which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

And this is what these tests are about. Creating a platform for progressives and tyrants on the Court to ignore the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and also allow the Court to second guess the wisdom of legislative authority even if the act is within the legislative intent of our Constitution. In fact, the very idea of these “tests” is to create an illusion of justice taking place under our constitutional system, but with the ultimate objective being to place the Court in a position to impose its own version of justice using flowery terms and phrases in long winded opinions which never address the constitutionality of an issue to justify its actions, while at the same time ignoring the documented legislative intent of a written Constitution as it relates to the specific case at bar!


Now, with the above in mind, my dear friend, if you read the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case which struck down a distinction based upon sex, you will find there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the decision to support the notion that the 14th Amendment was adopted to prohibit distinctions based upon sex. In fact, the Court via Ginsburg’s written opinion in the VMI case blatantly ignored the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and decided to arbitrarily suggest the 14th Amendment forbids distinctions based upon sex. But if one makes a distinction based upon sex and it is challenged in Ginsburg’s Court, the party so doing must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the distinction to overcome the Courts whim that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions based upon sex ___ an arbitrarily whim and fancy invented by the Court.

In addition, Ginsburg noted in the VMI case, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

So, why is there nothing in Ginsburg‘s written opinion establishing that under the 14th Amendment the American people decided to prohibit States to make distinctions based upon gender? The answer is, she couldn’t because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and the amendment was only intended to apply in a very narrow area: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens.

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every type of imaginable discrimination such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour in which the Court ruled the 14th Amendment guaranteed Martin the right to ride around in a golf cart during the PGA event, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination which obviously was not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the prohibition on STATE SPONSORED discrimination mentioned in the 14th, and enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination to be based upon “RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE”... GENDER NOT YET BEING MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUION!

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People finally decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “SEX.”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg suggested in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed so-call equal rights amendment offered for adoption to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit sex discrimination in the 1980’s which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg despotically asserted?

And just what were the intentions under which the 14th Amendment was adopted as expressed during the Congressional debates covering its adoption? One supporter of the amendment put it this way:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)

Bottom line is, my dear friend, our federal courts are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

Did you learn that "rational basis" crap in law school?

Yes, a place with which you are obviously unfamiliar.


And this is what these tests are about. Creating a platform for progressives and tyrants on the Court to ignore the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and also allow the Court to second guess the wisdom of legislative authority even if the act is within the legislative intent of our Constitution. In fact, the very idea of these “tests” is to create an illusion of justice taking place under our constitutional system, but with the ultimate objective being to place the Court in a position to impose its own version of justice using flowery terms and phrases in long winded opinions which never address the constitutionality of an issue to justify its actions, while at the same time ignoring the documented legislative intent of a written Constitution as it relates to the specific case at bar!

All this verbal diarrhea means is that you disagree with the Court's interpretation of the 14th, especially the Equal Protection Clause. And your protestations concerning the Court's second guessing the "wisdom of legislative authority" are fatuous. It's the job of the Court, not the legislatures, to determine constitutional issues, and the very purpose of the 14th (as well as the Bill of Rights) is to limit what legislatures can do. So please spare me the hand wringing about "legislative authority". What Justice Jackson said about the Bill of Rights can also be applied to the 14th Amendment: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg suggested in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

For the same reason that it took 86 years for racially segregated public schools to be declared unconstitutional or why anti-miscegenation laws survived for 99 years, despite the 14th's clear purpose to eliminate state-sponsored racial discrimination. There's a lot of inertia in irrational biases, and sometimes it takes a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS decision to make the point.


Bottom line is, my dear friend, our federal courts are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

In your opinion. If you really feel that way, why don't you start a movement to amend the 14th to make it apply solely to state-sponsored racial discrimination? Tell the people they'll be much better off if States are free to reinstitute laws that, for example, bar married women from managing their own property or entering into contracts; or those prohibiting women from engaging in certain occupations (such as the practice of law). Good luck.

[johnwk]

All this verbal diarrhea means is that you disagree with the Court's interpretation of the 14th, especially the Equal Protection Clause.


When you get around to supporting your absurdities by citing the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as it was expressed during the 39th Congress, get back to me with your documentation. I take it you were never taught the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[johnwk]

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg suggested in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

For the same reason that it took 86 years for racially segregated public schools to be declared unconstitutional or why anti-miscegenation laws survived for 99 years, despite the 14th's clear purpose to eliminate state-sponsored racial discrimination. There's a lot of inertia in irrational biases, and sometimes it takes a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS decision to make the point.



Now that is a brilliant way to not answer the question. Did they also teach you that in law school? If they did, they taught you nothing more than one of the many stupid debating tricks which have been around for centuries.

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[LibForestPaul]

You misunderstand the issue. The EP Clause prohibits a State from discriminating with no rational basis when recognizing out-of-state marriages. If Ohio recognizes a out-of-state heterosexual marriage (which it does), it cannot refuse to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage, any more than it could refuse to recognize an out-of-state interracial marriage.

Why can I not take this logic even further? If one state recognize the marriage between 15 year olds, then all states have to recognize marriage between 15 year olds.

[LibForestPaul]

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
So, from this ruling, gay marriage is a privilege or immunity of the United States. Had no idea marriage was a federal mandate.

[PaulConventionWV]

The real goal behind same sex marriage is simple, devalue the sacredness of the man and woman, bond, then people stop having children naturally. Eventually the scientific dictatorship can control all human procreation aka Adolf Huxley Brave New World

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

'Aka' means "also known as". Please use it accordingly.

[PaulConventionWV]

and this is why republicans lose elections that should be landslides. Let the gays marry, its not going to make them any more gay. If there is a church that will do it, who are you to tell the church what it can and can't do. If the world was severely underpopulated than you might have a case, but its not....its the opposite. The whole sanctity of marriage went out the window when the divorce rate hit 50%.

If they aren't hurting anyone, what justification can you possibly use to deny them the ability to get married. Thats statism.

You don't get it. Nobody's preventing the gays from going to a church and exchanging the vows. This was NEVER about that. It's about the state marriage license. It's not about the marriage ceremony, it's about the license. It was always about the license. Gay marriage ceremonies are not illegal.